Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

[Wisconsin Gov Scott] Walker 2, Unions 0
American Thinker ^ | December 20, 2013 | J.R. Dunn

Posted on 12/20/2013 12:17:24 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife

It seems that the unions had good reason to fear Scott Walker.

In news that is unlikely to receive wide play in the legacy media, it appears that a number of Wisconsin unions failed to achieve recertification as a result of year-end member votes.

The recertification votes were a consequence of Act 10, the epoch-making collective-bargain reforms pushed through by Walker in the face of mass demonstrations, vandalism, death threats, and all but open rebellion by unions in 2011. One of act's provisions was that public-sector unions must be annually recertified by a positive vote of at least half their members. The first such vote took place over the past few weeks, with results released Thursday.

According to preliminary results from the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, over 5,500 Wisconsin workers chose to abandon their unions. These include an entire unit of substitute teachers in Milwaukee along with food service, maintenance, and transportation units in Dane Country. Both are onetime centers of anti-Walker sentiment.

Other union failures occurred in towns as widely separated as Menomonee Falls (which saw the collapse of its entire teachers union), Lake Geneva, Fond du Lac, New Berlin, Germantown, Beaver Dam, and Elcho.

The vote marks a serious rebuke to the public-sector unions, the AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) above all, particularly in light of the fact that Wisconsin is the birthplace of public-sector unionism....

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: afscme; scottwalker; teacherunions; union; wisconsinshowdown

1 posted on 12/20/2013 12:17:24 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Magnificent.


2 posted on 12/20/2013 12:24:56 AM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Annual re-certification seems a bit excessive, and expensive.


3 posted on 12/20/2013 1:23:20 AM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife; Hunton Peck; Diana in Wisconsin; P from Sheb; Shady; DonkeyBonker; ...

Another win for Act 10

FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.


4 posted on 12/20/2013 1:50:36 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
Annual re-certification seems a bit excessive, and expensive.

Sounds like it's a one-time expense.
5 posted on 12/20/2013 2:58:22 AM PST by Kegger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Bravo for the Guv!

Leni

6 posted on 12/20/2013 3:04:28 AM PST by MinuteGal (Repeal it !.....NOT Revamp it !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

The CBS website in Madistan, WI paints a completely different picture.
http://www.channel3000.com/education/Most-Wis-school-unions-survive-elections/-/1624/23570600/-/rda9gmz/-/index.html


7 posted on 12/20/2013 3:35:20 AM PST by gorush (History repeats itself because human nature is static)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

That is excellent news.

Union membership should never be a condition of employment. Politicians who use their office to protect and promote unions are corrupt abusers of power. Government should *never* show favoritism in that manner.


8 posted on 12/20/2013 3:52:24 AM PST by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gorush

It’s all in how you spin the story. The fact that some unions did not survive is significant. Those unions that survived the first round of voting may see a need to be more representative of their members, and reform themselves in an effort to survive when they realize that they no longer have a stranglehold on their members.


9 posted on 12/20/2013 3:54:48 AM PST by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

Yea, expensive to the unions. If you wanted to work at a particular trade before Scott Walker, you had to join the union having your dues automatically deducted, no if ands or butts. Now the worker decides if he needs union representation. The union has to do the certification, the state just enforces the new law.

What I find stunning is how fast this all happened. It would have been last year but the statists pulled a last minute Judge’s ruling that was not struck down until after the certification date had passed.

Next year will be even more stunning, especially when the unions take a big hit in Michigan. This could very well be the start of the end to unions as we know them.


10 posted on 12/20/2013 4:09:11 AM PST by mazda77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
Question:

Is the recertification vote by union members, or by all employees.

Here's why I ask?..and maybe I'm missing something

Let's say that before the reforms passed, we had a union of 1,000 teachers. So, 501 would have to vote for recertification. Next year, 400 teachers stop paying dues..drop out of the union..so that 301 are needed to recertify, right? But that's not a majority of the total number of teachers ( 1,000) And what happens when more than 500 teachers drop out of the union? It's then not even a viable collective bargaining agency.

11 posted on 12/20/2013 4:22:39 AM PST by ken5050 (I still miss Howlin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All

However...Scott Walker supports the SEIU and other Unions with his support of Illegal Alien Amnesty

Another Ryan/Priebus Wisconsin Liberal RINO folks getting hoodwinked by. Not falling for it


12 posted on 12/20/2013 4:51:04 AM PST by SeminoleCounty (Einstein was right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

The funny thing is that when he was first elected he TRIED to work with the unions. They, like El-Presidente, refused to negotiate. But in this case we had all the power and were able to work around them.


13 posted on 12/20/2013 5:02:28 AM PST by logic101.net (How many more children must die on the altar of "gun free zones"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

If unions have to spend money for such votes, they will have less to spend to support Democrats.


14 posted on 12/20/2013 5:06:45 AM PST by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

In the case that you mention above, the union organization of 1000 would not be recertified. Then, if 499 teachers decided to organize as a union again, they could do so. The vote to recertify that union would vote again the next year, with 250 of 499 members needed to recertify.


15 posted on 12/20/2013 5:14:26 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius (www.wilsonharpbooks.com - Eclipse, the sequel to Bright Horizons is out! Get it now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

Many thanks..


16 posted on 12/20/2013 6:26:27 AM PST by ken5050 (I still miss Howlin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
Annual re-certification seems a bit excessive, and expensive.

In what way?

Corporations have to have annual votes for the BoD. This should be essentially treated the same way. As to the expense, if unions have enough spare money lying around to throw into democrat political coffers, then they have money enough to run a recertification vote.

17 posted on 12/20/2013 7:17:06 AM PST by zeugma (Is it evil of me to teach my bird to say "here kitty, kitty"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kegger
"Sounds like it's a one-time expense."

"One of act's provisions was that public-sector unions must be annually recertified by a positive vote of at least half their members.
18 posted on 12/20/2013 12:19:09 PM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: monocle

“If unions have to spend money for such votes, they will have less to spend to support Democrats.”

There has to be a better rationale for an annual vote — something to do with protection of the workers, or the public interest. A strictly punitive measure, that’s designed only to bleed funds from the unions, cannot be justified. Such things have a way of circling around, and biting us in the rear.

If a Governor is elected for 4 years, couldn’t a union be certified for 2 years — or longer, if there is a longer-term union contract in place?


19 posted on 12/20/2013 12:28:11 PM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
"Sounds like it's a one-time expense." "One of act's provisions was that public-sector unions must be annually recertified by a positive vote of at least half their members.

Help me out here, in the article it was stated: "In news that is unlikely to receive wide play in the legacy media, it appears that a number of Wisconsin unions failed to achieve recertification as a result of year-end member votes."

If the union did not re-certify, then did it de-certify? One would assume at that point point the union ceases to represent its members and would have to organize them to once again accept union representation which would not be the same as annual re-certification?
20 posted on 12/21/2013 3:21:13 AM PST by Kegger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Kegger

I suspect that those very questions will be before the Courts in Wisconsin, early in the new year.


21 posted on 12/21/2013 1:57:41 PM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

People working in in these jobs are compelled to join the union. It seems fair that there should be a regular vote as to whether the union still represents the interests of those workers. Maybe every two or three years would be OK but previously the unions had a permanent control of these jobs.


22 posted on 12/21/2013 2:08:39 PM PST by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

I’m not sure of the laws in Wisconsin but in many states these are closed shops. Everyone must be in the union.


23 posted on 12/21/2013 2:10:58 PM PST by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter

We’re pretty close to agreeing completely.


24 posted on 12/21/2013 2:39:33 PM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson